Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!mcvax!kth!sunic!liuida!prosys!ath
From: ath@helios.prosys.se (Anders Thulin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Apple/uSoft Court's "Memorandum of Decision and Order"
Message-ID: <450@helios.prosys.se>
Date: 2 Aug 89 06:44:39 GMT
References: <8146@hoptoad.uucp> <8180@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Programsystem AB, Linkoping, SWEDEN
Lines: 27

Thanks to John G. for typing this in. It's good to have something
solid to discuss.

There is a portion of the text that I find difficult to understand. It
could be a typo, but it could also be correct:

>    It is, of course, true, as Apple argues, that in 
>determining whether an audiovisual work infringes, the work must
>be viewed as a whole.  But where a work includes licensed
>features as well as unlicensed features, infringement depends on
>whether the unlicensed features are entitled to protection;
             ^^^^^^^^^^
>licensed features are treated as being in the public domain.
 ^^^^^^^^
>_Cf._ _Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc._, 862 F.2d 204, 208 (9th
>Cir. 1988) (substantial similarity of unprotected expression
>does not support finding of infringement).

If the words 'unlicensed' and 'licensed' were exchanged I don't think
I would think twice about it. But it seems a bit odd that 'unlicensed
features are entitled to protection'. The parenthesis in the last two
lines seems to say so to.

Or am I missing something?
-- 
Anders Thulin, Programsystem AB, Teknikringen 2A, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
ath@prosys.se   {uunet,mcvax}!sunic!prosys!ath